OnWis97

I think the best the Cavs have ever looked was the Lebron era uniforms, but I'm a big fan of the current uniforms too. All they need is a gold alt that they wear at home.

I think this may be unpopular, but I LOVE the current look, particularly the lack of white on the road jersey. A gold alt would probably look good, too.

On 6/19/2012 at 3:13 PM, sorcerer77 said:

On 6/19/2012 at 2:56 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

The team isn't necessarily wrong, but the style is quite wrong.

 

Yes, I think the Suns did a throwback during the Barkley era to the original uniforms which had been used all the way up to just before Barkley joined Phoenix.

 

I think they may have worn those in preseason that year and busted out the new ones for the regular season...but I may be making that up

I've seen a lot of love for the Devils' retro uniforms they wear around St. Patrick's Day and the desire for them to be alternates. I don't really like them enough for them to be full time alts, and quite frankly I'd rather see the Devils with a black alternate full time. It'll never happen on Lou's watch, but if a team could pull off a black alternate well and without anyone crying BFBS, it's the Devils

The Devils current set is already the very definition of BFBS. They tossed out a unique colour scheme, that perfectly represented the area, and replaced it with something bland and safe. If they hadn't won 3 cups, I'd be a huge proponent for Green coming back full time.

I disagree. Black and red are your absolute typical "devil" colours. Don't get me wrong - I liked the green and red, but this wasn't a case of BFBS.

I tend to agree that this was not BFBS, but I also agree with Morgo's statement that "They tossed out a unique colour scheme, ..., and replaced it with something bland and safe." Red and black may be more "devil", but the red and green was great and we'll never get that scheme again...not like that where there are no silvers, blacks, grays, etc. New Jersey had its "simple" that it has now AND "unique". Now it just has "boring". I know black and red make sense, but boy were those old uniforms sharp...

Minnesota Lynx WNBA championship ring

I gotta say...that's pretty sharp. I cannot tell if the logo is outlined in blue or black...hopefully blue.

The problem with the logo is that the tiger head is just so much better. That logo is my favorite in football. And the whole B v. C thing is very valid. C would be a much better mark to represent the team.

That's what the NFL lacks...cat head logos.

Try this again:

The problem with the logo is that the tiger head leaping tiger is just so much better. That logo is my favorite in football. And the whole B v. C thing is very valid. C would be a much better mark to represent the team.

I like the color brown and have no idea why it isn't used more in sports, or why so many people on these forums hate it so much. I would like someone to give me a reason why he/she hates brown so much without using the word "poo" or any variation of that word.

Funny that you should mention brown since Uni Watch did a post about that yesterday. It seems that the issue that people have with brown as a sports color is that there are so few colors it goes well with. You're pretty much restricted to pairing it with variations of yellow and orange. Anything else just clashes with it too much.

I'm with Big Red on this one. I love Brown. The Brown/Orange Padres of the late '80s was a beautiful look. I also like it with a little light blue trim (I think this is the official color scheme of Tufts University, but their bookstore online pretty much does not even sell the color scheme...I was thinking of buying a t shirt).

It's try that Brown may not go with a lot of colors, but there should be room for at least one brown team per league. Browns, Padres, and one NBA/NHL.

I think the bottom line is that individual teams want to sell merchandise. Black, blue, and red are generally what people like. Teams make the smart choice, but it makes the leagues a bit homogenous.

On the nook...cannot edit above post.

Anyway....totally agree. After dumping the Motre Bame cap, thisset was awesome. Easily the best they have ever looked

On 5/25/2012 at 10:31 PM, Lights Out said:

The Ball in Glove sucks and the Brewers' current uniforms suck. Nothing tops these classics:

 

 

 

 

Really like the sides of the ring. That was the biggest disappointment for me on the Packers ring. The sides were so plain.

I like the side with the Lombardi Trophy, but I don't like how busy it looks with all those years squeezed in. The other side would be nice, but I hate that they used "New York Football Giants". I wish that term would go away. It's been nearly 60 years since that distinction was needed.

Still a great ring overall though, because the top (the most important part) is beautiful.

Oregons's Rose Bowl Ring

I like the design. Plus, if you don't like to wear a ring, you can use it as a paperweight.

Texas Holiday Bowl Champs ring:

Just saw these on twitter. Very nice I must say.

I agree. See what happens when it's not 100% covered in diamonds.

Because of what Robinson did, I have no problem with his number being retired. However, retiring Gretzky's number was plain stupidity. Even if you think he's the greatest (which I do not), you have to admit that he was not the greatest by a long shot. If he gets his number retired, then Lemieux and Orr do, too. And then people will make a case for Richard and Howe. And Hasek and Roy. And...

Now I'm not saying that those above numbers should be retired league-wide, but it is a slippery slope. If player X deserves his number being retired by the league, then player Y does too, and maybe even player Z. Gretzky was not the hands-down greatest ever, not by a longshot, and he doesn't deserve that honour.

I totally agree.

Actually, what I don't agree with is what you are almost implying: that it would make sense if he was the "undisputed" best ever. Even if he is, so what. That's no reason for a league-wide retirement.

To me, Gretzky is the greatest. But Robinson's league-wide honor is about his cultural significance. Just retiring a number leaguewide for "the best player" is silly.

Yeah not bad. I like the "color to diamond" ratio better in the 1980s and 1990s, but today, all you can ask for is this much color and not all diamonds. The blue around the logo at least gives it some "pop"

On 3/19/2012 at 4:33 PM, RedSox44 said:

On 3/19/2012 at 4:31 PM, the admiral said:

On 2/25/2012 at 7:02 PM, RedSox44 said:

Omar looks weird in any jersey that's not Mariners or Indians

 

 

Oh man, those stupid circa 2006-2007 gradient undershirts. Those were awful.

 

Yup. They were so bad that the MLB passed a law that said that undershirts had to be all-one-color on the parts exposed or something.

For awhile, I actually liked them, mostly because I was twelve when they first debuted.

 

I think that pattern was the manufacturer's (Nike?) way of getting around the rule that their logo could not be shown. I suppose this was MLB's way of making sure manufacturers did not start making these designs, rendering the undershirts un-"uniform" as a Nike-sponsored teammate's pattern would greatly differ from reebok-sponsored teammate's pattern. Good idea, MLB.

On 2/25/2012 at 9:24 AM, bigbean24 said:

These were the best Oilers jerseys of all time.

 

 

I absolutely agree. This was a great update. I wish they'd kept this through to today. But of course they decided to come out with practice jerseys for edge update, which probably hastened the desire to go back to the old.

On 2/26/2012 at 8:44 AM, Lights Out said:

These guys are just glad they aren't wearing those ugly wannabe-Raiders sweaters:

 

 

This is one of my top 10 all time NHL jerseys; maybe even top 5.

Saying that Oilers knock-off is "on par" with NHL fashion sweaters is just flat out wrong.

Not if you've seen how horrendous NHL fashion sweaters can get.

I've seen plenty of examples, thanks. Neither of the two Oilers knockoffs posted here come close to being "on par" with any NHL fashion sweater I've ever seen.

yeah, you're talking about two different things. Yes, NHL has some ugly fashion jerseys (see the two above jerseys), but from a quality perspective, the Oiler knockoffs are comically bad, unlike the official jerseys.

Those official fashion jerseys suck, in my opinion, but they don't display the poor quality of the Oiler ones.

I'm not going to praise purchasing bootlegs because it is apparently illegal and I got into small trouble because of it. But there is still an important issue that has to be raised (I guess it was, it just got lost within other arguments), namely IP abuse by copyright holders. I understand that among the community like this one people value every detail but most of the fans don't care if the collar is a little bit thicker or the number slightly bigger than it should be. They want to show the support for their team and do not spend significant share of their salary for it. I agree that buying counterfeits is not a solution because that actually means a financial loss for the team. However, by buying replicas you lose the money yourself. I bought myself Orlando Magic replica jersey when I was in USA 3 years ago (swingman appeared too expensive for me). After wearing it a couple of times and before washing it even once, the numbers started to peal off already, meaning I cannot really use it anymore. I do realize that 50$ is a low price comparing to authentics but still too much for such crap. The soccer replicas come practically in one price category (I know that techfit versions become more accessible now but you won't get them in most of the shops) but at least they can be used for doing sports and washed many times. By selling replicas, NBA is just fooling the customers. I have no pity for people being cheated when buying bootlegs (including myself) but a purchase of a licensed apparell does not guarantee anything either.

Some of your quality points are taken...but like with other poor-quality products, hopefully people send them the message by not buying them.

I did have some doubts about the AI one because of the price but Shawn Kemp one looked okish.

How could you tell they are fake though?

My first thought was that the Kemp jersey looks OK, but look at the transition from the orange-ish color to yellow on the circle and compare to the real thing.

Also note the outlines...looks like the real one has a way thicker yellow and thin red on the "40", whereas the ebay ones are the same width. The color of the ball looks gray on the ebay one and pretty much the dull orange of the real ball on the Kemp photo. There are a few other small things too.

One thing that nobody has seemed to acknowledge in this thread is that most people who buy counterfeit jerseys do not realize that what they're buying is fake.

Not only do they know they are buying a fake, they brag and flaunt it.

I have to disagree with you about this. The people on this site? Yes, they would know whether or not they're buying a fake. But almost any other sports fan would be clueless. People really underestimate how much the average fan knows about uniforms. Truthfully, they don't know anything about logos and uniforms. Most of the sales of counterfeit uniforms are fans that don't realize what they're buying is fake. People that know they're getting a fake but go ahead with it anyway, sure these people definitely exist, but they don't make up nearly the amount of people that buy counterfeits unknowingly.

A large portion of my fans are Detroit sports fans and could careless about logos and jerseys. They all have fakes (Lions and Wings) They know they have fakes and are ok with it because they saved a few bucks.

I suppose we all have anecdotal stories on this, but while I agree with -Dan on the issue in general, I tend to think that most people don't recognize that they are getting fake jerseys. Of course us "nerds" get it and most of us can pick 'em out. But it seems to me that most people don't notice some of the things we do. They don't notice "bubbly numbers" or even incorrect details. They don't remember that Player X was gone before that jersey even existed or that that old Twins wordmark should not match that current twins sleeve patch. I can only speculate the degree to which they would care if they did know...(Probably not alot)

I'd say most fake jersey owners just think they found a good deal and that most that get their product with the big wordmark (MLB), wrong number font, slightly wrong color, etc. don't really notice it.

Flying Elvis > Classic Patriots logo

I was kind of dragged kicking and screaming, but I agree. Pat had far too much detail. I don't love the flying Elvis logo, but it's decent.

However, my unpopular opinion is that the red 1980's Pats jersey (the one with the shoulder stripes) is a top-5 jersey in NFL history.

ok here is a question, when on ebay I am looking at ones like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minnastoa-Timberwolves-Ricky-Rubio-Revolution-30-Away-Blue-Jersey-/280800787725?pt=US_Basketball_Fan_Shop&hash=item416107fd0d#ht_4368wt_952

and I know it is from hong kong but it looks legit, my question is, will i just not get it when I order it? or will I receive what I buy because that jersey looks legit and would love to get it

That picture looks legit, but just look at how they spell Minnesota in the listing. I'd be surprised if you got the jersey in that picture.

yea, but the thing I dont get is that this seller is a top rated seller and all of his comments from the buyers are positive

see, it's not hard to get. you can see why that would be in this thread. there are different types of people who buy knock offs. in one group, there are the people that don't know the difference. these are the guys who can see wearing one and bragging to their buddies, "yeah, authentic and only $40 on ebay!" then there are people who brazenly say, "i know it's a knock off, but [insert litany of justifications], so i just don't care." that makes for a lot of satisfied customers, so it would make sense that a knock off seller would have good feedback.

(removed stuff I agree with, but we've been over)

Yeah, I think the majority of buyers are happy for those reasons. Remember, we are NERDS. We recognize this stuff more than most. And most of the rest "get it" and "don't care".

Though if he is doing a bait and switch with the photos, I'd expect a couple people would provide negative feedback.

My guess, though...fake...cuz if it seems to good to be true, it usually is.

ok here is a question, when on ebay I am looking at ones like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minnastoa-Timberwolves-Ricky-Rubio-Revolution-30-Away-Blue-Jersey-/280800787725?pt=US_Basketball_Fan_Shop&hash=item416107fd0d#ht_4368wt_952

and I know it is from hong kong but it looks legit, my question is, will i just not get it when I order it? or will I receive what I buy because that jersey looks legit and would love to get it

Who knows. They may use a legit photo and still send a fake.

I wonder what the NFL is losing by continuing to push the terrible screened jerseys at $80. For the average user, if you go to NFL.com, your options are $80 for crap, or $300 for "authentic." You go to eBay, and you see tons of sewn, nicer jerseys (certainly compared to the screened) for $50-$75. If you're not aware of the illegalities, you'd be dumb to go for the screened version.

Yes, there is such a thing as too good to be true, but I think (as I've said before in this thread) the NFL is in part creating this second-hand marker by the way its official items are priced.

Note: I'm not making a moral or legal argument; only an economic one.

The problem is one can make an economic argument to justify any illegal activity.

I could name a hundred things I feel are overpriced...including cars.

The NOB font is hilarious.

On 11/29/2011 at 2:03 PM, knnhrvy16 said:

For Iowa State, I liked this set:

 

ALOT better than the current ones:

 

I just love that old Cy logo on the helmet, and the old uniforms were very sharp. I liked the lighter red, too. The currents just have too much of a USC vibe for me to get on board with them, and I think Cy is a much better logo than the I-STATE one by far.

 

That's a very popular opinion...I think I have the unpopular one. I hated Cy on the helmet and think the I State logo is better. I also love the current uniform and think they are a colored facemask away from perfection. I am aware of the USC issue, but I think it looks so good, that I can live with it...particularly the lack of white on the homes.